Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caminus on July 18, 2010, 10:49:40 AM
-
A dogmatic SV is like the protestants who think that the reading of scripture is morally necessary for salvation. Only in the case of the DSV, he replaces the alleged moral necessity of reading scripture with the moral necessity of declaring men to be heretics and outside of the Church. This attitude presupposes one must sift through many, many docuмents in addition to simply adhering to the faith. This requires one to be intellectually apt to determine heresy, this involves the capacity to find out if the alleged error is contrary to defined dogma, and the quasi-juridical authority to render a judgment. Unless the DSV just wants other Catholics to take their word for it. This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
Another problem with DSV is that their entire thesis presupposes the necessity of modern technology, much like the protestant notion of the moral necessity of reading scripture (whatever that means) presupposes the technology behind such an endeavor. Thus, in adding to the content of the faith, they posit the absurd reliance on technology in order to render their judgment and thus become true catholics. But the merciful ones will apply the moral doctrine of invincible ignorance to those unfortunates who don't have access to the internet (the eighth sacrament and the medium of divine wisdom). But wrapped up in this benign condescension is to be found an implicit declaration that such a "truth" is morally necessary for salvation, otherwise no appeal would be made to such a moral doctrine in the first place. The very notion of "invincible" is in direct reference ot the concept of "punishment."
Moreover, just like the Muslim who pretends that their religion is pure and simple, but upon closer examination, one can see that it is filled with thousands of deviations, complexities, opinions and ideas, so too with the DSV with their pretended simplicity a complex array of contradictory opinions that taken to their logical and dogmatic conclusion would cast out every man who didn't adhere to one's own eccentric opinion.
-
This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand? We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize. Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of? That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.
You are SSPX. That means you admit that Vatican II has error. BUZZZZ!!! A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error. That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church. So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?
-
One area I want to study is whether there is apostasy or blasphemy involved in praying with members of other religions if you are not partaking in their rites, but simply praying in their place of worship. Like Ratzinger praying at the Blue Mosque with the imam.
Some may say Ratzinger was not actually participating in a Muslim "service" or whatever they have. But imagine -- what if I, as a Catholic, went into a Protestant den of iniquity, kneeled down and began to pray? Now imagine I was Pope when I did this, the kind of message it sends.
I will admit, it is hard to prove apostasy, since from what I understand, the apostasy would be to participate in an actual ceremony of another religion. But there has to be some kind of implicit heresy there -- I just don't know enough at the moment to pin it down. Perhaps someone else can help.
But I am not giving ground to Caminus. That is just one odious detail among many of Ratzinger's faux-pacy.
-
One need not actively participate in the ceremony of another religion to be an apostate, but that would be an indicator of apostasy.
One can apostatize ("abandon the religion revealed by God") and become a non-believer.
The tragedy is that some people can't see that the actions and utterances of Ratzinger are just not Catholic.
Some people just do not grasp thhe fact that heresy, schism, and apostasy incur automatic excommunication that is real, and has a real effect, even if a judgement has not been pronounced.
-
This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand? We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize. Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of? That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.
You are SSPX. That means you admit that Vatican II has error. BUZZZZ!!! A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error. That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church. So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?
Great points, I guess the answer is SSPX agrees he is their pope.
-
One area I want to study is whether there is apostasy or blasphemy involved in praying with members of other religions if you are not partaking in their rites, but simply praying in their place of worship.
I read once that if that should happen the Catholic must lead the prayers.
-
One area I want to study is whether there is apostasy or blasphemy involved in praying with members of other religions if you are not partaking in their rites, but simply praying in their place of worship.
I read once that if that should happen the Catholic must lead the prayers.
Catholics should never be going to non-Catholic places of worship to pray.
-
Catholic have always gone to non catholic places to pray, to cemeteteries, events, hospitals, homes of non-Catholic friends, etc, but they are to lead the prayers, or get up and leave during the religious part of the event.
Dispensations have always been granted by the Church to its members, a relaxation from an existing law, but the key is they are not allowed to paricipate in the religious part in any way. The law itself does not change, but relaxed for serious reasons, such as a death of a Protestant mother for example.
The Catholic must ask for this dispensation, it is not automatic, at that time the priest will advise the Catholic.
You are correct to say that Catholics should never, ever go to non-Catholic places of WORSHIP and participate in their false worship.
-
Catholic have always gone to non catholic places to pray, to cemeteteries, events, hospitals, homes of non-Catholic friends, etc, but they are to lead the prayers, or get up and leave during the religious part of the event.
Catholics should not pray or lead prayers their place of worship.
R76 specifically was writing about praying "in their place of worship".
Have a look at his post.
-
Catholic have always gone to non catholic places to pray, to cemeteteries, events, hospitals, homes of non-Catholic friends, etc, but they are to lead the prayers, or get up and leave during the religious part of the event.
Catholics should not pray or lead prayers their place of worship.
R76 specifically was writing about praying "in their place of worship".
Have a look at his post.
I already agreed that You are correct to say that Catholics should never, ever go to non-Catholic places of WORSHIP and participate in their false worship.
-
I already agreed that You are correct to say that Catholics should never, ever go to non-Catholic places of WORSHIP and participate in their false worship.
Yes, I know but I was just pointing out that's all that he had been discussing, not about cemeteteries, events, hospitals, homes of non-Catholic friends. :wink:
-
Thanks Roman Catholic! :cheers:
-
Thanks Roman Catholic! :cheers:
:cheers: Myrna!
-
The question still stands.
When Ratzinger went to the Blue Mosque to pray, he took off his shoes. He conceded to this false religion in terms of his dress.
Do Muslims even have an equivalent of the Mass or do they just go to mosques and pray? If the latter, Ratzinger WAS participating in false worship in a place of false worship.
I can feel the apostasy in my bones but at the moment I don't have enough proof. But it doesn't matter ultimately, because this is more about VII being a false sect with an invalid Council than about individual bad Popes.
P.S. It was a "mufti" and not an imam he prayed with. Sorry.
-
The question still stands.
When Ratzinger went to the Blue Mosque to pray, he took off his shoes. He conceded to this false religion in terms of his dress.
Do Muslims even have an equivalent of the Mass or do they just go to mosques and pray? If the latter, Ratzinger WAS participating in false worship in a place of false worship.
I can feel the apostasy in my bones but at the moment I don't have enough proof. But it doesn't matter ultimately, because this is more about VII being a false sect with an invalid Council than about individual bad Popes.
P.S. It was a "mufti" and not an imam he prayed with. Sorry.
He is guilty of breaking the First Commandment!
When I was attending Catholic school, we were taught never to go into any other religions and I remember walking home in Chicago, had to pass a Protestant church, and I would cross the street so I wouldn't get too close to the building.
What a difference in todays students going to "Catholic" schools, the only place they are taught not to go is a Traditional Catholic church.
-
This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand? We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize. Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of? That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.
You are SSPX. That means you admit that Vatican II has error. BUZZZZ!!! A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error. That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church. So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?
Both Churches. He's Pope as punishment. God does not will for someone like to him to be Pope but simply allowed him to get elected.
-
This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand? We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize. Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of? That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.
You are SSPX. That means you admit that Vatican II has error. BUZZZZ!!! A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error. That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church. So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?
Both Churches. He's Pope as punishment. God does not will for someone like to him to be Pope but simply allowed him to get elected.
Yet, isn't it impossible for a pope to be pope of truth and error?
-
This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand? We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize. Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of? That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.
You are SSPX. That means you admit that Vatican II has error. BUZZZZ!!! A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error. That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church. So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?
Both Churches. He's Pope as punishment. God does not will for someone like to him to be Pope but simply allowed him to get elected.
Yet, isn't it impossible for a pope to be pope of truth and error?
Not necessarily. It sounds confusing, but there's more truth to it then someone might think.
-
This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.
What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand? We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize. Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of? That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.
You are SSPX. That means you admit that Vatican II has error. BUZZZZ!!! A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error. That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church. So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?
Let me give you a little hint: "ipso facto" doesn't mean magical. It is not a confirmation of your shallow, facile mental state in regard to ecclesiastical questions.
Your observation begs the question. Is it a substantially different Church or is it a question of accidental change?
And to refresh your memory, the one that relies on a thousand little distortions, Vatican II was not a true ecuмenical Council in the sense that it exercised no authority while its own rules were broken. Obviously, we are dealing with another animal entirely, thus to apply the same standards to this concrete situation is a bit intellectually dishonest.
Additionally, it is interesting to note that you lower the threshold in the determination of membership in the Church to perpetuating merely "error" as opposed to "heresy." How convenient of you.
-
One area I want to study is whether there is apostasy or blasphemy involved in praying with members of other religions if you are not partaking in their rites, but simply praying in their place of worship. Like Ratzinger praying at the Blue Mosque with the imam.
Some may say Ratzinger was not actually participating in a Muslim "service" or whatever they have. But imagine -- what if I, as a Catholic, went into a Protestant den of iniquity, kneeled down and began to pray? Now imagine I was Pope when I did this, the kind of message it sends.
I will admit, it is hard to prove apostasy, since from what I understand, the apostasy would be to participate in an actual ceremony of another religion. But there has to be some kind of implicit heresy there -- I just don't know enough at the moment to pin it down. Perhaps someone else can help.
But I am not giving ground to Caminus. That is just one odious detail among many of Ratzinger's faux-pacy.
In the early Church, some of the apostles continued to go to the Jєωιѕн temple services for a time. They were not considered apostates.
-
The question still stands.
When Ratzinger went to the Blue Mosque to pray, he took off his shoes. He conceded to this false religion in terms of his dress.
Do Muslims even have an equivalent of the Mass or do they just go to mosques and pray? If the latter, Ratzinger WAS participating in false worship in a place of false worship.
I can feel the apostasy in my bones but at the moment I don't have enough proof. But it doesn't matter ultimately, because this is more about VII being a false sect with an invalid Council than about individual bad Popes.
P.S. It was a "mufti" and not an imam he prayed with. Sorry.
Raoul - please do everyone (including yourself) a favor and do a course in scholastic logic. You lack of strength in reasoning is very obvious and it is leading you down many wrong paths - which ultimately wastes your time.
To say that a person worships if they are with people who consider "doing nothing" to be worship is laughable. Worship is not some arbitrary thing that can be applied to anything we want - it has a very specific signification and you are ignoring that entirely and looking only at the surface.
Does a single sedevacantist exist who has studied Thomistic logic? This sort of bad reasoning appears all over sede arguments. It is so bad one could considering calling "equivocation" "sedevocation"!
-
So you say without any proof. You constantly talk about others' bad logic without offering any compelling logic of your own. I don't think anyone except Caminus would agree with you that I lack strength in reasoning.
In that post you cite, I clearly state that I am not sure about what constitutes false worship in that context. I was asking for those who knew more about it to fill me in. I was actually taking a step back from most sedes who gasp "HE WENT INTO A MOSQUE!!! APOSTASY!!!" Yet you acted as if that is what I were doing.
I read St. Thomas often. He's my favorite writer ( not just theologian ). If you are an expert, please help me. Is taking your shoes off, entering a mosque and praying with a mufti while facing Mecca constitutive of an act of worship? I would say that it is, now that I think about it.
What I lack here is not Thomistic understanding but knowledge of the Muslim religion. For instance, do they have services, with sermons and rituals, or do they just enter mosques, face Mecca and pray like Ratzinger did?